Thanks Jrista for those useful tips. I am used to rejections (from Nature, Science, Cell etc). But, I have learned a lot from the rejections and criticisms and have improved my technique significantly since last year. Here is a kingfisher taken with my 7D and a reed bunting on my first outing with the 5D III - I love both cameras - both are 100% crops), and higher resolution closer up of a goldfinch last week on the 5D III.

One other recommendation. Ease up on the NR a bit (or even a lot). If those are full frame crops, you are either decimating your detail via NR, or something is wrong with your lens. On both cameras, if you were able to get the birds that large in the frame, you should be getting as much detail as I did in my orange morph house finch shot (if not more).

The two small ones have the birds only 500 pixels high as they were os far way (40 yards through a 600 mm lens). When it closer, I can do much better. Here is a 1596x1260 crop from the centre of the 5760x3840.

OKYou can try to down load raw 2 files, one from 5dmk2 and one from d800, sun set, both cameras exposed the same regarding time/f-stop and 100iso and exposure after the high lights, to reproduce the high lights intact , then Im adjusting the lower levels / shadows with the same parameters in camera raw , and later the same adjustments in photoshop with lifting the lower levels / shadows : look at https://picasaweb.google.com/106266083120070292876/5dmk2AndD800DRSunSet

and the results look like this if I lift the shadows even more. Nikon d800 to the left and 5dmk2 to the rightTHIS IS the results of 14 stops DR with clean shadows in lower levels and compared to 11 stops Canon DR with banding and pattern noise.

once again...

1. yeah we do all care about dynamic range. BUT noise in low light is what we care the most.2. if we want more dynamic range, we would perform hdr shots3. most of us do not want details of the sunny sky at noon, except you

note: if you are that good, then please explain why mr. micheal freeman shot a landscape with f/32, shutter .5 second and 20mm focal lengh (probably somewhere in page 15-20 of his book). AND STOP TALKING ABOUT THE "DR" THING SINCE MOST OF PEOPLE IN THIS FORUM WILL PROBABLY NOT LISTEN NOR RESPECT YOU BASED ON GIVEN INFO.

Could a mod move all the Mikael Canon vs. Nikon stuff to some separate, dedicated thread for that topic? I would really prefer we don't destroy ANOTHER thread with the same old debate. People HAVE been asking for Mikaels original RAW files, but that discussion really doesn't belong in this topic. It belongs elsewere, isolated, in its own little world where the debate that will inevitably rage on won't ruin any other peaceful discussions.

and the results look like this if I lift the shadows even more. Nikon d800 to the left and 5dmk2 to the rightTHIS IS the results of 14 stops DR with clean shadows in lower levels and compared to 11 stops Canon DR with banding and pattern noise.

once again...

1. yeah we do all care about dynamic range. BUT noise in low light is what we care the most.2. if we want more dynamic range, we would perform hdr shots3. most of us do not want details of the sunny sky at noon, except you

note: if you are that good, then please explain why mr. micheal freeman shot a landscape with f/32, shutter .5 second and 20mm focal lengh (probably somewhere in page 15-20 of his book). AND STOP TALKING ABOUT THE "DR" THING SINCE MOST OF PEOPLE IN THIS FORUM WILL PROBABLY NOT LISTEN NOR RESPECT YOU BASED ON GIVEN INFO.

one again -you have more options with 14 stops DR, you can handheld the camera and take one picture and develop the raw file after high lights and shadows and put them together , with out tripod and static motive, not moving motivewhat you then are writing you must explain to me, is it you who not understand the benefits of large DR or do you speak for all all people here at CR that they do not think large DR or small DR with banding and pattern noise are a issue

what do you mean

i careless about that one since canon offer good low light iso. like i said if i want to get more detail then i am using hdr *bracketing" and yes, i can manage myself to handheld up to 1/5s. my images are mostly snapshot but it probably look better than yours and your friend "Aglet".

these images: one was taken with my mouse pad to test handheld (at 1/5s) ability (turned off all light in my room, the only available source light was from my notebook. taken with my canon 7d). another one is the only one of my snapshot landscape with cokin graduate filter (taken after 4 months of using dslr).

note: i am traveling for work; therefore, i download these images back from my personal site...

Could a mod move all the Mikael Canon vs. Nikon stuff to some separate, dedicated thread for that topic? I would really prefer we don't destroy ANOTHER thread with the same old debate. People HAVE been asking for Mikaels original RAW files, but that discussion really doesn't belong in this topic. It belongs elsewere, isolated, in its own little world where the debate that will inevitably rage on won't ruin any other peaceful discussions.

+as many as I am allowed. He is destroying the fun of being here.......

you do not understand the difference, I can use what ever shutter speed . f-stop I want with one exposure, tell me how can you do the same with the camera on a tripod and taking 2 or more exposure. ? a example: running people in front of the camera and sunset behind, or fast running cars or what ever

1. yes, those posted images were taken only one exposure and no repeat shot2. with tripod or without tripod, you can take hdr depending on you iso and skill, want to learn? learn yourself from jay maisel.3. people in my picture were not my subject, therefore, i was careless. however, i consider that as a lucky thing since it is add more live to the image (imo)

you do not understand the difference, I can use what ever shutter speed . f-stop I want with one exposure, tell me how can you do the same with the camera on a tripod and taking 2 or more exposure. ? a example: running people in front of the camera and sunset behind, or fast running cars or what ever

1. yes, those posted images were taken only one exposure and no repeat shot2. with tripod or without tripod, you can take hdr depending on you iso and skill, want to learn? learn yourself from jay maisel.3. people in my picture were not my subject, therefore, i careless. however, i consider that as a lucky thing since it is add more live to the image (imo)

sigh... i am getting tired of talking to old guy like you...

and ? Nikon has still 14 stops DR and Canon 5dmk2 11 including pattern noise . 6D has 11.5 stops DR and less pattern pattern noise than 5dmk2 , what is it you do not understand?

did i say that i am careless about that one and i do care about clean noise at high iso, not full of color noise like nikon? if you care, keep it for yourself since number of us in here have shown no appreciation about what you are talking about. why making noise, nikon hire you to say that in here?

you do not understand the difference, I can use what ever shutter speed . f-stop I want with one exposure, tell me how can you do the same with the camera on a tripod and taking 2 or more exposure. ? a example: running people in front of the camera and sunset behind, or fast running cars or what ever

1. yes, those posted images were taken only one exposure and no repeat shot2. with tripod or without tripod, you can take hdr depending on you iso and skill, want to learn? learn yourself from jay maisel.3. people in my picture were not my subject, therefore, i careless. however, i consider that as a lucky thing since it is add more live to the image (imo)

sigh... i am getting tired of talking to old guy like you...

and ? Nikon has still 14 stops DR and Canon 5dmk2 11 including pattern noise . 6D has 11.5 stops DR and less pattern pattern noise than 5dmk2 , what is it you do not understand?and that picture you show has no DR at all, flat and rather ugly ( and remember that is my personal view on your picture)

those images are better than yours though... i am not that stupid to pay for that much money per month even though my pay rate is more than double (if i do not want to say triple) the shown amount per year...

yes Im paid 40000USD / month + what ever gears I want.ugly? Im showing the different sensors characteristics, I have aspirations to make the picture quite

yep, those are ugly. not those images in here. i am saying those images that you have taken for universities and images that you have posted on you facebook (if they are all the right one).

REALLY, SHOW ME YOUR BEST OF BEST IMAGE AND DO NOT GO OUT THERE AND JUST STEAL LIKE YOU HAVE DONE AIITE... I DO NOT JUDGE IT MYSELF BUT I WILL LET SCOTT KELBY (A PHOTOSHOP MASTER AND NIKON SHOOTER) JUDGE IT...

yes Im paid 40000USD / month + what ever gears I want.ugly? Im showing the different sensors characteristics, I have aspirations to make the picture quite

yep, those are ugly. not those images in here. i am saying those images that you have taken for universities and images that you have posted on you facebook (if they are all the right one).

yes they are, but I have been living on this ugly pictures as a photographer since 1984, how about you?

your mail box was to small

taking images is not my career though, but i know that i am better than you from taking picture to probalby science (chemistry, physics, math, programming languages, you name it but not biology) too...

Could a mod move all the Mikael Canon vs. Nikon stuff to some separate, dedicated thread for that topic? I would really prefer we don't destroy ANOTHER thread with the same old debate. People HAVE been asking for Mikaels original RAW files, but that discussion really doesn't belong in this topic. It belongs elsewere, isolated, in its own little world where the debate that will inevitably rage on won't ruin any other peaceful discussions.

+as many as I am allowed. He is destroying the fun of being here.......

The difference between a .CR2 or .NEF file and a DNG is that you can work the RAW file and then save to DNG and it appears unedited, you have clearly already edited the Canon file. What tiny bit of credibility you had due to your obviously limited but deep knowledge of one specific of a sensor has just been blown out of the water.

Mikael, you are an irrelevance.

Now I'm interested. Please show me a set of files - one .cr2 and one .dng made from that cr2 file - where the image data inside the DNG has been significantly altered...?

Of course it can be done. I could change the content of just about any raw file from any camera maker. Canon and some others have a control sum data tag that is supposed to protect against that kind of tampering, but that checksum encoding has been cracked since several years. So it's definitely not impossible, it just takes some work.

What I question is the general availability of those tools, and that you think that just about anyone can do it. AND the fact that you erroneously think that any normal program can change the image content of a raw file before saving it as a DNG. Yes, some EXIF tags may be repositioned, and some extra data may be saved - but the original image data is copied in a bit-perfect way. Bit-perfect as in "no single bit of the resulting image surface has changed between the original raw and the dng".

(actually that isn't 100% true, only 99.999% - Since Nikon and also Sony can use a kind of gamma / area coherency compression when saving a raw file, round-off faults in the conversion can appear since the DNG is LS-JPEG compressed, without gamma. That is, errors on the scale of +/-1 bit in a 14-bit file, or errors more than 13Ev down)

But still, show me the two files where the DNG has been seriously and provably tampered with. YOUR files, not someone elses.

nope, they are uploaded by sprend to you.come back if you have any questions

any one els who wants them?

Mikael, do you understand the difference between a DNG and an original RAW file? Post the untouched RAW files with intact EXIF please.

sorry , but I use DNG. If you have problems with that it is your problem, and please tell me what is the difference between a DNG and CR2 or NEF who can make a real difference?You have the exif there regarding time/f-stop and iso

The difference between a .CR2 or .NEF file and a DNG is that you can work the RAW file and then save to DNG and it appears unedited, you have clearly already edited the Canon file. What tiny bit of credibility you had due to your obviously limited but deep knowledge of one specific of a sensor has just been blown out of the water.

Mikael, you are an irrelevance.

I have reported this message to the moderator, I have declared the benefits of raw wise ADC at the sensor edge and and this is well-known facts http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD800.html Nikon d800and Canon 5dmk2 http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonEOS_5D_MkII.htmlI do not accept that you call me different things in your answers , my answer to you is: study different sensor types, DR, read out noise, analog path way and how banding banding occurs.If you not have the knowledge to a real discussion is one thing, but stop to discredit me as a person and that Im now are cheating with DNG files.

Mikael, I think that is overreacting. Private simply called you something twice here and to me it didn't come out as an insult. I think you can be very harsh in some of your comments towards other people also which I find completely unnecessary. I don't understand why you are taking all threads into a discussion about sensor performance. A couple of weeks ago I asked you a question about reducing noise and you gave me a good answer that actually help me along. You more experienced and knowledgeable guys are really valuable on this forum sharing your insights and helping us less experienced on the way.

You being Swedish (as me) means that you've followed the debate the last few weeks about internet hate and how people anonymously are bashing and insulting other simply because they are expressing their views. You're a bigger man than that.